The court noted Izhar Ansari’s direct role as the beneficiary who supplied costly mobile handsets purchased using stolen credit card funds
A case was registered by the Cyber Police Station, Central Division, Mumbai, for offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and provisions of the Information Technology Act. During investigations, police found that purchases had been made through an online delivery platform using the credit card.
Mumbai: A sessions court on Wednesday denied bail to a 23-year-old Jharkhand resident, Izhar Ansari, in a Rs 47.78 lakh cyber fraud case, noting his direct role as the beneficiary who supplied costly mobile handsets purchased using stolen credit card funds.
The judge further said, “This is a kind of cyber fraud wherein the credentials of the credit card are misused for causing huge monetary loss to the informant…The challenge of investigation in such kinds of offences is the identity of the perpetrators of the crime. The defence said Ansari was an employee of co-accused Faizan Shaikh, that Shaikh misused Ansari’s credentials, and that he had been made a scapegoat. The defence also said no further custody was needed and Ansari was ready to follow bail conditions. The sale proceeds are also transferred to the account of the present applicant,” the judge said.
Rejecting the bail plea, additional sessions judge P B Ghuge held, “….there is ample evidence against him. The other accused involved in the syndicate are not yet booked. However, the chargesheet is filed against the applicant. Having regard to the nature and gravity of offence and the evidence collected against the applicant, he is not entitled for grant of bail. The court found that material collected during investigation linked Ansari to the supply of two costly mobile handsets purchased through the alleged misuse of the complainant’s credit card. It was also alleged that sale proceeds traced to Ansari’s account. Ansari sought bail claiming false implication, absence of criminal antecedents, completion of investigation and filing of the chargesheet. The court noted that six profiles were used for purchase of articles and that two mobile handsets were bought and transferred to shops through Shaikh. “The present applicant had supplied those mobile handsets to Shaikh.